1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to data management. More specifically, this invention relates to managing multiple data providers.
2. Description of Related Art
Many modern computing environments may be characterized at least in part by a distributed model. In most business and academic settings, for example, users share access to resources such as storage, printing, and communications facilities over a local-area network. Distributed applications on a broader scale are supported by connections to larger networks such as the Internet. Yet even within individual computing devices, management of distributed resources and functions is becoming increasingly common. One reason for this trend is the establishment of multitasking operating systems and multiprocessor hardware.
One consequence of distributed systems is that acquisition and management of system information becomes even more important to the proper configuration, operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting of a system. Such information may include data relating to device and/or network operation such as the characteristics and operating status of hardware and software components, the capacity and level of use of network pathways, and the history of usage of resources such as storage and printing devices. When different parts of a network are executing on different platforms, or when different components are supplied by different vendors, problems of incompatibility may arise.
Several distributed management schemes attempt to overcome vendor and platform differences by providing a standard framework for communication of management data. These schemes include:
SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol), as described and developed in such documents as RFCs (Requests for Comments) 1157 (May 1990), 1514 (September 1993), and 2578 (April 1999) (available from University of Southern Californiaxe2x80x94Information Sciences Institute (ISI, www.isi.edu), Marina Del Rey, Calif. and also available at www.rfc-editor.org). SNMP uses management models called MIB (management information base) objects or modules;
CMIP (Common Management Information Protocol), an extension of SNMP that is described in RFC 1189 (October 1990) (available from ISI);
DMI (Distributed Management Interface), as defined in the DMI 2.0s specification (available from Distributed Management Task Force, Inc. (DMTF, www.dmtf.org), c/o Mackenzie Kesselring, Portland, Oreg.). DMI uses management models called MIF (management information format) files; and
CIM (Common Information Model), as defined in the CIM specification version 2.2 (Jun. 14, 1999) and CIM schema version 2.3 (available from DMTF).
It may be desirable to support more than one such scheme in any particular system. For example, it is possible that no one scheme will be supported by all of the devices within the system. Alternatively, a component that is managed by one scheme may be added to a system that supports a different scheme. In cases where more than one management scheme exists in the same system, it is possible that multiple schemes may manage information of the same kind under different names, units, or relations or by association with different behaviors. Therefore, while it is desirable to accommodate multiple management schemes, it is also desirable to avoid confusion among the datasets they provide.
A similar problem may be encountered in accessing information from data providers other than distributed management schemes. For example, with respect to an access directed across a network including a number of databases or an access directed across a wider network such as the Internet, it is possible that data responsive to a query relating to any particular subject may be available from more than one provider. A request submitted to an Internet search engine, for example, may be fulfilled in a similar fashion by a number of different search engines. Likewise, a request for a stock quotation may be answered similarly by a number of financial information sites. Requests for directions to a particular location, a review of a particular movie or restaurant, or a price quotation for a new car may also be handled by more than one data provider. In any one of these cases, each such provider may process the request somewhat differently and/or may provide a result in a different format than another provider.
A certain provider may be preferred for a particular type of query, if not for a different type of query. It is desirable to direct a query to a preferred provider. However, a requesting entity may not have the information or the capacity to support a decision as to which provider is preferred for a particular type of query.